Assignment 1A: Karen Maeers & Donna Baker
In this exercise, we applied the Design Challenge to develop a tool designed to support learners in generating ideas that help them take intellectual risks in digital learning environments.
Our method
Before starting the challenge, we clarified the purpose and process together, including sharing reflections from past courses and experiences.
What worked…
- The interview section helped us to gain a general overview of the other person’s position, and a more concrete awareness of our own experiences.
- The timed interventions pushed us to stay on task and to focus on generating unfinished ideas, as opposed to finessing content.
- Digging deeper provided context and allowed us to check in with the other person to clarify meaning and gain empathy and trust through reflection.
- Working synchronously in the same document and watching the other person share their raw ideas served as a spontaneously generated way to understand their thought patterns and empathize with their experience.
What we developed based on what we learned…
Based on the exploration and application of our respective experiences, we developed an experiential learning tool (Crichton, S. & Carter, D. 2017) for learners to use for planning a systematic method for taking intellectual risks when interacting with their colleagues online. Learners consider both their purpose and audience to help frame their interactions, and apply several techniques to mindfully plan and develop interactions through a series of checklists. After piloting the use of all suggested techniques, learners reflect on what worked, and develop a shortlist of proven techniques that they can use to support them in taking intellectual risks in digital learning environments. Providing a proven method for success in a digital learning environment enhances their student experience, and contributes to their self-regulated learning capabilities (Winne, 2013).
Conclusion
Our experience was successful overall. We have two ideas for future improvement:
- Our interactions were solely text-based. If we used visual tools that more readily capture abstract ideas, such as mind mapping or process mapping tools, would we have arrived at different conclusions?
- The individual interaction steps felt forced, as intended. Would the use of an audible timer to provide an x-second warning help to give a sense of closure to the individual interventions? We found that we were often in the middle of a good idea when the timer went off, which caused us to “switch off” and begin to think about the next task, as opposed to fully formulating and sharing our idea.
Questions…
We have a few additional questions regarding the process of mindfully exploring intellectual risk taking using the Design Challenge framework:
- How well would the interactions work based on pre-existing relationships? Would your current perceptions of someone that you know well influence your interactions?
- Would the process work differently with a complete stranger? And how would that be influenced by how the facilitator worked to develop a safe learning environment, such as establishing group norms, defining roles, and clarifying expectations?
- Would our perceived success of the experience have been different if we hadn’t participated in, researched, or read about the processes we examined?
For your review and comments…
Click the link below to review a copy of the intellectual risk-taking tool we developed through the Design Challenge. We welcome your review and insights.
Note: We have produced an interactive PDF document. You can view the document’s contents via the Dropbox link, but must download the file in order to activate the interactive elements.
References
Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.
Winne, P. H. (2013). Learning Strategies, Study Skills, and Self-Regulated Learning in Postsecondary Education. In Paulsen, M. B. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 377–403). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0
December 2, 2017
I am in awe of your excellent, orderly, purposeful, reflective tool for increasing risk-taking! You went above and beyond with your interactive document. I learned new things about myself by going through the activity. I hadn’t before put much conscious thought into a target audience or purpose for my online communications. It made me notice how a significant portion of my intellectual risk-taking has been obligatory participation for activities or assignments. Do you have any ideas for encouraging intellectual risk-taking specifically for learners who are ONLY extrinsically motivated to share content for completing an assignment to achieve a grade? The empathize step from the d.school process showed me how some students simply want to gain knowledge and skills without exposing themselves online and broadcasting what is self-perceived as underdeveloped expertise. What if the sole purpose for taking intellectual risks in an online program is “because I have to”? How might your tool help set and meet goals for improvement in that context?
Steps 1 and 2 were illuminating. Step 3 was the page that I had to stare at and think about to understand it. Steps 4 and 5 were the most gratifying in my opinion. The document itself was a very cool idea, well-formatted, user-friendly, and pleasantly designed.
You posted several meaty questions in your blog post, some of them rhetorical. If you participate in the d.school design challenge in the future, it would be interesting to hear your comparison of experiences if you modified the timer or worked with a stranger. I purposefully went out of my comfort zone for this assignment, wanting to see what happens by working with and getting to know someone new. It takes extra time to make acquaintances, get comfortable, and establish group norms and individual strengths, but I like the new trio and I’m happy to branch out a bit.
Overall, you produced a captivating read and a neat tool!
December 3, 2017
Hi Angie.
Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.
The Design Challenge process was outside of our comfort zones, too, but we both were surprised by how much insight we gained in such a short time.
We hoped to build a tool that could be used by any learner, especially those who are extrinsically motivated by mandatory participation requirements. In working through the process we were both reminded of LRNT 521 where we described our digital participation plan. What stood out the most is that we both agreed that we tend to participate in ways that are comfortable to us. When reviewing our partner’s suggestions for intellectual risk taking in Step 5, we both admitted that we could take more risks.
If learners are externally motivated to produce content for assignment completion, our tool works from that perspective, as the first question addresses the user’s purpose in participating. It isn’t likely that a tool such as this one would overtly help develop a user’s intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, by completing the process and gaining positive feedback for their own efforts, it may help the extrinsically-motivated student internalize the value of the experience and the learning gains.
Thanks for the time and attention you took in reviewing our tool – you’ve given us some great feedback to consider as we work to refine our tool so that it does truly encourage all learners to take intellectual risks in the online environments we create.
Donna and Karen.
December 2, 2017
Wow, an actual document, congratulations!!! I must admit I became confused between hearing about your learners, and hearing about your own experiences as learners taking the design challenge. What type of learning contexts are you involved with? I would love to hear more about your decisions in creating your amazing prototype with respect to your learners.
December 3, 2017
Hi Sean.
Thank you for your question.
We participated in the design challenge from the perspective of being learners in online environments, with the goal of then taking our experiences as online learners and extrapolating them to devise a tool that could be used with learners who participate in the digital environments that we design.
What we noticed after completing steps 1 through 4 was that we both experienced similar challenges when participating as learners, including that we both participated differently depending on our purpose and audience. Donna, for example, tends to participate to do research and to gain clarification that her plan to move forward is one that is based on proven best practices, but is mindful not to participate to gain validation. Karen, on the other hand, participates differently depending on the task (work, school, for fun) and needs a way to share her authentic self so that she can build confidence and develop trust with her communities by providing a similar voice throughout all interactions.
In Step 5 of the Design challenge we generated 15 ideas based on our interviews and interactions. From that list of ideas, and asking the question, “What are ways we might encourage our learners to engage in intellectual risk taking and become more actively engaged in the online learning environments we design?” we developed our learner tool.
Donna’s learners are adults who are voluntarily enrolled in 12-lesson, six-week, online graphic design courses, and who literally come from all walks of life and from locations around the world. Karen develops both in-person and online learning interventions for professionals who are required to complete mandatory professional development courses to maintain their professional designation, and voluntary sessions designed to support them in accessing tools that help them achieve success in their roles.
Hope that helps to provide some context, but please reach out if you’d appreciate additional information.
December 3, 2017
Hi Karen and Donna,
I echo the sentiments of our colleagues when I say fantastic job on the document. I think it is quite clear and there is a logical progression to each step. I wonder how this would work for younger learners (which I realize was not your targeted demographic). Also, to be able to capture the attention of learners for a good period of time (1+ hour for the design challenge) can be difficult. Having each learner pick their own purpose helps ground the task to each of their own situations which is useful as learners like to know that they are learning applicable knowledge. Lastly, do you see this as a group activity because I think that could help with some idea generation and put people outside their box by being exposed to ideas that they themselves might not have come up with.
George
December 4, 2017
Hi George –
Thank you for your comments. You raise some interesting ideas, and not ones which we had considered. We think the process would work well with younger learners, although probably with teenagers, not grade school age learners.
We agree that a one-hour, concentrated session would be difficult for younger learners, but there’s no reason why a tool such as the one we developed couldn’t be introduced over a series of activities in multiple sessions.
We think introducing the document tool as a group learning exercise would be beneficial not only in terms of idea generation for the tasks addressed by the document itself, but for the larger discussions around digital citizenship and communications.
Karen & Donna.